By the end of 2009 I predict President Barack Obama will sign something that will be touted as health care reform. Whether that something will be classified as universal health care, is yet to be determined.
With a bipartisan coalition of three former Senate majority leaders making their way to Capitol Hill pitching Congress to pass health care legislation, there is unprecedented momentum in the air.
Bob Dole, who led the opposition against former President Bill Clinton's failed health care plan, is now advocating to get something passed this year. Howard Baker compared the current health care debate to the seminal moment when Congress passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. And Tom Daschle urged that the bill have bipartisan support.
But questions linger.
Can there be a public plan that competes directly with the existing private companies? If so, does that create a climate of unfair competition? Where members of Congress come down on these questions depend on their political philosophy be it liberal, moderate, or conservative.
The other issue is cost. It's hard to believe Congress can pass an effective piece of legislation given the size and scope of what's initially estimated. The preliminary discussions for a health care bill that does more than tinker around the edges is in the range of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
The identified $300 billion in cuts to Medicare merely scratches the surface. This reality raises an additional question: Will the politics of the issue allow for the fruition universal health care?
Most experts agree universal health care cannot be achieved unless employer benefits are taxed. But to merely tax the rich doesn't reach the requisite dollars for a comprehensive plan. Therefore, the president would also need to tax middle-class workers.
But this goes against one of the president's campaign pledges. It is common knowledge, especially among his opponents, that candidate Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class.
Proponents of universal health care should welcome the contrarian questions; it is the only way to avoid being under the illusion their position is immune from its own set of downsides that require difficult choices.
But there is also a bitter irony to the health care debate. Why is it on matters of life we are justifiably cautious, but on matters of death we are much more cavalier?
Imagine if the run up to the Iraq invasion and occupation was carried out in a similar manner to the ongoing health care debate. What if there was a legitimate attempt to have a bipartisan consensus -- as the former Senate Majority Leaders advocated for health care reform -- that did not shy away from asking the tough questions on Iraq?
According to the National Priorities Project, by the end of FY 2009, the cost for Iraq and Afghanistan will exceed $907 billion -- an amount that in less than 10 years rivals the anticipated cost for universal health care. Iraq as a stand-alone is expected to exceed $700 billion this year.
We're bleeding money that leads to carnage and it is hardly mentioned. But many of those who gave bombastic speeches on the Senate floor that jettisoned our young men and women into harm's way are now concerned about the cost to ensure that all Americans have access to health care.
Tough choices notwithstanding, the questions raised about health care come down to political will. Do Congress and the president have the will to make this potentially groundbreaking legislation law?
If so, tough choices can't be avoided. Universal health care will probably not result in an equitable system. And raising taxes only on the rich won't get it done.
The president must go to the American people and courageously explain why he must renege on his campaign pledge -- that the view from the campaign trail as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee is very different from the one in the Oval Office that must transcend political affiliation.
If the president fails to do this, we may have reform, but it will not be universal health care.
To fully appreciate the different emphasis we place on matters of life and death, in the time required to read this column we dedicated roughly $800,000 to our war efforts.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
Another problem I could see is government controlling treatment options. Being on the autism spectrum I have read articles about this happening before (generally Estee Klar or however you spell her name seems to be quite trustworthy) where the government endorses a certain kind of therapy (ABA for example) and won't fund others (corruption in the government... never). Estee once even wrote an article about how impossible it was to find anything other then ABA in Canada, so she had to travel to America to get her son the therapy that seemed to have the most effect on him... is it just me or would this be a bad thing?
top 1% made 22% of all income in 2006.
in the last 2 years the top few hundred people have raked in billions.
We began with a goal of not hurting the insurance industry. The same industry that kills thousands of Americans for corporate profits every year and has done so for decades. Everything that has followed form there supports this single goal.
Universal coverage, in the highly unlikely event we get it, will be hideously expensive and will require either a massive increase in the debt (our favorite funding method for 30 years) or stiff tax increases. You have to figure that a congress that won't even try to keep the middle class alive will have no trouble hitting them with additional taxes so don't expect the rich to get tagged to pay for this.
All because President Obama took Universal Single Payer Health Insurance run by the government off the table. With that act of betrayal the rest became inevitable.
We don't want to put the Federal Government into the insurance business... and it doesn't have to be. What we do want is for every person to be able to GET medical care, timely, if only so they don't infect the rest of us. There must be no "uninsured motorists."
A government is uniquely capable of doing that, because it alone defines the parameters under which businesses must operate. It levies taxes, but also can grant tax incentives. It can create compelling motivations to do the right things.
Just look back at the debate footage on Healthcare and you will be reminded that this plan was not a plan he endorsed. Just as with FISA the President said one thing, and will do another. He was against FISA during most of the Electoral process, yet ended up voting for it in the end.
I was hoping that this President was a new type of politician, the type who did what he said he would do. But alas, politics always wins out, and the American people always loose.
Talk about Alice-in-wonderland. This is where DEMS fail miserably: in framing debate in terms advantageous to their intended goals.
The biggest part of Obama's stimulus was the LARGEST middle class tax cut in US history, without a SINGLE republican vote, but that is now forgotten and everyone is being told "tax increases," and that is how Obama will be remembered. Reagan cut taxes AND he raised them in 6 of the 8 years he was president, but GOP superior framing never lets anyone remember the tax increases.
As stated above, biggest growth in social welfare program since LBJ was done by complete Republican control, but Dems are described as party of big government.
Half the Republicans in Congress voted for the largest tax rate increase in US history (on AIG bonuses from 35%-90%.) But we are worried Obama may have to raise taxes.
Dems are too busy trying to govern to effectively communicate with the people on what they want to do and so lose control of the debate and are labeled/caricatured as something they are not.
Solution: Repeal the REAGAN tax cuts.
But the base is now united in opposition to Obama's rapid expansion of government. His honeymoon will soon be over. Expect big changes in 2010.
1) Whether or not he does anything with health-care, taxes are going up.
2) "Can there be a public plan that competes directly with the existing private companies?" A better question is can the existing companies compete with a government run program?
Let’s bring in something that has been missing in Washington for many yrs now. COMMON SENSE.
If you are an employer and you have to either lay off employees or cut your employee health care to save costs which option do you think most employers going to choose? Either way you slice it and no matter how you try to spin it there will be no alternative to Gov’t health care because employers will opt out of providing their workers health care and force people to go with the Gov’t option. So when Obama says there will be competition between Gov’t and private health care don’t believe it.